Quote from: DooMAD on August 29, 2015, 05:25:13 PM

It'll still be "gavincoin" this and "altcoin" that, just with newer and lamer excuses. This is the internet, the flaming doesn't stop. Roll Eyes

Who needs flaming? The facts speak for themselves...

1. Mike proposes controversial idea after another over the years, always proposing to introduce centralization and trust to Bitcoin, which is built on decentralization and is a TRUSTLESS network.

2. Becomes a committer to Core in 2013.

3. Partners with Gavin

4. Tired of having his centralization ideas shot down, forks Bitcoin XT in June 2015. Establishes a "leadership hierarchy" for development in place of Core's consensus development. "Decisions are made according to a leadership hierarchy." Who is at the top of this hierarchy? Clearly, Mike has launched a fork where he is the dictator and can now get every bad idea of his that was ever rejected by both people in open discussions and the Core devs in an easy to download client. All of the features described on the site sound rosy, do not discuss any of the objections to those changes, and even outright claim there is no risk. All discussion of the client is to be discussed on a moderated forum he controls.

The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned. Mike Hearn

By reformed, I presume he means will not permit Mike to erode its decentralization and trust-less foundation.

5. He uses block size as the red herring to promote XT, and a whole lot of nice words to make developers feel love at the bottom of his hierarchy.

XT is about more than just the block size limit. Mike Hearn

6. He then proposes a ridiculous centralized scheme to Core that runs counter to the decentralized trustless concepts that Bitcoin was created to be. Read the entire discussion.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6364

Based on what? Because his partner in crime, Gavin, claims to of suffered a DoS attack via Tor. No evidence was shared. There was no other node identified as being attacked. A little convenient, don't you think?

The devs gave really good reasons why this was not only a bad idea, but would do nothing to thwart DoS attacks as the vast majority will not occur through Tor exit nodes. Like always, Mike brushed off EVERY concern and line of reason with vague philosophical statements.

7. He then, of course, includes it in XT.

The concern people in this thread have is that people will download and install the client having no idea what can of worms they are unleashing, both on their systems, and the Bitcoin network.

Yes, there is a fork with only the block size change. But, will that be enough to thwart Mike's clear attempt to take over the Bitcoin protocol with nice marketing? Clearly, open discussion leading to insight is beneficial.